Definite article missing in Heb 3:1

The forum for those who still struggle with morphology, syntax, and idiom, or who wish to discuss basic questions about the meaning of Greek texts, syntax, or words.
Forum rules
This is not a place for students to ask for the answers to their homework assignments. Users who do that may be banned.
Post Reply
Tim Evans
Posts: 91
Joined: July 10th, 2015, 1:40 am

Definite article missing in Heb 3:1

Post by Tim Evans »

Already knowing that the English reads 'the Apostle and High Priest' I had expected the greek to read "τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ τὸν ἀρχιερέα".

Im not aware of a rule that might indicate if we should expect the definite article here, so it leaves me wondering if it means anything that it has been dropped off here. Both "Apostle" and "High Priest" sound like explicit titles (and are capitalised as such) in English, so why do we see the definite article dropped off?

I suspect theres an important deficiency in my grammar knowledge here. I would welcome suggestions for supplementary reading that might help me understand better when to consider a noun to be a title, or a simple description.
timothy_p_mcmahon
Posts: 259
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: Definite article missing in 3:1

Post by timothy_p_mcmahon »

Without opening the can of worms that is "Granville Sharp's rule" (you can google it if you've got time on your hands)...

If the article were attached to both ἀπόστολον and ἀρχιερέα, the most natural reading would be that the apostle and high-priest are two distinct individuals. A good example is the phrase τιμα τον πατερα σου και την μητερα (Ephesians 6:2). The most common way of describing one individual with two or more definite nouns is to use the article only on the first of the two, creating a sort of self-contained phrase of ART N και N, e.g., ευλογητος ο θεος και πατηρ του κυριου ημων (1 Peter 1:3).
Tim Evans
Posts: 91
Joined: July 10th, 2015, 1:40 am

Re: Definite article missing in 3:1

Post by Tim Evans »

That helps me with both the question at hand, and gives me something to read up on. Much appreciated!
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Definite article missing in 3:1

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

This is a perennial question. Different grammarians need to be read carefully noting significant subtle differences in the way they frame the question. I read once again Smyth and Cooper today and they appear to agree more or less. But their framing of the question is different from A.T. Robertson who cites Gildersleeve and more so from Dana & Mantey (I didn’t cite them). Compare Wuest with Smyth, Robertson, Gildersleeve and Cooper. They are not saying exactly the same thing.
Kenneth Samuel Wuest, the former Teacher Emeritus of New Testament Greek, The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois, explains the reason the Greek structure of this phrase, “pastors and teachers,” must be translated as “teaching-pastors” or “pastor-teachers.”
“The rule is as follows: When two nouns in the same case are connected by the Greek word ‘and,’ and the first noun is preceded by the article ‘the,’ and the second noun is not preceded by the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing to which the first noun refers, and is a farther description of it. For instance, the words ‘pastors’ and ‘teachers’ in Ephesians 4:11 are in the same case and are connected by the word ‘and.’ The word ‘pastors,’ is preceded by the article ‘the,’ whereas the word ‘teachers’ is not. This construction requires us to understand that the word ‘pastors’ and ‘teachers’ is a farther description of the individual called a ‘pastor.’ The expression therefore refers to pastors who are also teachers, ‘teaching-pastors.’” (Treasures from the Greek New Testament)
H.W. Smyth
Smyth § 1143 who states:
1143. A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion: οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχᾱγοί the generals and captains (the commanding officers) X. A. 2. 2. 8, τὰς μεγίστᾱς καὶ ἐλαχίστᾱς ναῦς the largest and the smallest ships (the whole fleet) T. 1. 10, ἡ τῶν πολλῶν διαβολή τε καὶ φθόνος the calumniations and envy of the multitude P. A. 28 a. Rarely when the substantives are of different genders: περὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψῡχὰς καὶ σώματα concerning their own lives and persons X. A. 3. 2. 20.
A. T. Robertson p. 787
3. Groups Treated as One. Sometimes groups more or less dis-
tinct are treated as one for the purpose in hand, and hence use
only one article. Cfτὰς φίλας καὶ γείτονας (Lu. 15:9), τοὺς νομικοὺς
καὶ Φαρισαίους (14:3), τὰ πλατείας καὶ ῥύμας (14:21), τῶν πρεσβυτέρων
καὶ γραμματέων (Mk. 15:1), τῶν Ἐπικουρίων καὶ Στωκῶν (Ac. 17:
18), τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων (Ac. 23:7), τῶν  ποστόλων καὶ
προφητῶν (Eph. 2:20), τῇ  πολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου
(Ph. 1:7), τὸ πλάτος καὶ μῆκος καὶ βάθος καὶ ὕψος (Eph. 3:18), τὴν
κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογήν (2 Pet. 1:10). Cf. τήν in Tit. 2:13. So in Mt.
17:1 (W. H. text) we have τὸν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάνην, where
the three are one group. This is probably more frequent in ex-
amples where a genitive occurs also, or some other attribute.2
So Ph. 1:20 τὴν  ποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα μου, 1:19 τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως
καὶ ἐπιχορηρίας τοῦ πνεύματος, 2:17 τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς
πίστεως. Cf. also 1 Th. 2:12; 3:7; Mt. 24:3; Ro. 1:20; Col. 2:8; Eph.
3:5; 2 Cor. 1:6; 1 Pet. 2:25; Ph. 1:25. These are all the simplest
and clearest illustrations.
Guy L. Cooper III, Attic Greek Prose Syntax, v.2, p930 §58.2.1.A
When substances are held closely parallel by conjunctions they usually have the same relationship to the rest of the sentence. Consequently, if the attributive article is appropriate with the first substantive, it is appropriate with the substantive, it is appropriate with the others also, and the article is repeated with each substantive.

Euripides Alcestis
Ed. Diggle, J.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.
Line 290

ἀλλ' ἄνδρα τε σχεῖν Θεσσαλῶν ὃν ἤθελον
καὶ δῶμα ναίειν ὄλβιον τυραννίδι.
οὐκ ἠθέλησα ζῆν ἀποσπασθεῖσα σοῦ
σὺν παισὶν ὀρφανοῖσιν, οὐδ' ἐφεισάμην
ἥβης, ἔχουσ' ἐν οἷς ἐτερπόμην ἐγώ.
καίτοι σ' ὁ φύσας χἠ τεκοῦσα προύδοσαν,
καλῶς μὲν αὐτοῖς κατθανεῖν ἧκον βίου,
καλῶς δὲ σῶσαι παῖδα κεὐκλεῶς θανεῖν.
μόνος γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἦσθα, κοὔτις ἐλπὶς ἦν
σοῦ κατθανόντος ἄλλα φιτύσειν τέκνα.

Aristophanes Ach Line 575
{ΛΑΜΑΧΟΣ}
Πόθεν βοῆς ἤκουσα πολεμιστηρίας;
Ποῖ χρὴ βοηθεῖν; Ποῖ κυδοιμὸν ἐμβαλεῖν;
Τίς Γοργόν' ἐξήγειρεν ἐκ τοῦ σάγματος;
{ΔΙ.} Ὦ Λάμαχ', ἥρως τῶν λόφων καὶ τῶν λόχων.
{ΧΟ.} Ὦ Λάμαχ', οὐ γὰρ οὗτος ἅνθρωπος πάλαι
ἅπασαν ἡμῶν τὴν πόλιν κακορροθεῖ;
{ΛΑ.} Οὗτος, σὺ τολμᾷς πτωχὸς ὢν λέγειν τάδε;
{ΔΙ.} Ὦ Λάμαχ' ἥρως, ἀλλὰ συγγνώμην ἔχε,
εἰ πτωχὸς ὢν εἶπόν τι κἀστωμυλάμην.
Cooper ) is framing a more general principle than claiming the multiple substantives are coreferential.


Cooper §58.2.1.B
However, such closely parallel substantives may also fuse into an organic whole presenting one organic idea. The article may be used with only the first substantive and this article extends its force over the whole complex.
... οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχᾱγοί X. A. 2. 2. 8 (the generals and captains They are thus distinguished as the officers' corps from the private soldiers. In the military technical language in Xe. names of military classes often take on the character of proper names so that they are used freely without articles even when we might rather expect them.)
Gildersleeve cited from Perseus:
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/phi ... Monographs


603
Repetition and non-repetition of the article.
The article may be common to a number of copulated substantives, even when they are of different genders or numbers, or it may be repeated with each member. Theoretically the repetition compels a separate consideration while the omission suggests unity. Practically the Greeks were almost as loose as we are prone to be, and a sharp difference cannot be made.

Theoretically then:
οἱ . . . στρατηγοὶ καὶ οἱ λοχαγοί, XEN. An. 3.5.14, the generals and the captains (as different classes of officers), but οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχαγοί (cf. ibid. 1.7.2), the generals and captains (officers as distinguished from the privates).
Practically:
τὸ ὅμοιον καὶ τὸ ἀνόμοιον καὶ τὸ ταὐτὸν καὶ ἕτερον, PLATO, Theaet. 186A; The like and the unlike and the identical and different. οἱ αὐτοὶ ὅρκοι καὶ ξυμμαχία, THUC.1.102.4.

Repetition of the Article:
DEM.1.22: τοὺς λιμένας καὶ τὰς ἀγοράς. 18.2· τῇ τάξει καὶ τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ. 7· τὰς αἰτίας καὶ τὰς διαβολάς. 12· τῶν μέντοι κατηγοριῶν καὶ τῶν αἰτιῶν. 17. 35.
LYS.12.35: πολλοὶ καὶ τῶν ἀστῶν καὶ τῶν ξένων. 43· ἡ ναυμαχία καὶ ἡ συμφορά. 57· τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὴν πόλιν. 75· τὴν παρασκευὴν καὶ τὴν ἀνάγκην. 13.63· ἡ δὲ τύχη καὶ ὁ δαίμων.
PLATO, Rpb. 359C: τῷ τε δικαίῳ καὶ τῷ ἀδίκῳ. 360 E: τόν τε δικαιότατον καὶ τὸν ἀδικώτατον. 363 E: ὁ μὲν οὖν ἔπαινος καὶ ὁ ψόγος οὗτος ἑκατέρων. 370 D. 371 E: ἥ τε δικαιοσύνη καὶ ἡ ἀδικία (cf. 372 E: τήν τε δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀδικίαν). 410 A: τοὺς . . . εὐφυεῖς τὰ σώματα καὶ τὰς ψυχάς. Theaet. 186 A (603).
XEN. An. 1.4.4: τῆς Κιλικίας καὶ τῆς Συρίας. 3.5.14 (603). Hell. 1.1.31: τὰς ναῦς καὶ τὸ στράτευμα.
THUC.3.3.1: οὐκ ἔπειθον τοὺς Μυτιληναίους τήν τε ξυνοίκισιν καὶ τὴν παρασκευὴν διαλύειν. 15.1· οἱ δὲ Λακεδαιμόνιοι καὶ οἱ ξύμμαχοι. 18.2· πληγέντες ὑπό τε τῶν Ἀντισσαίων καὶ τῶν ἐπικούρων.
HDT.1.17: τά τε δένδρεα καὶ τὸν καρπόν. 52· τήν τε ἀρετὴν καὶ τὴν πάθην.
AR. Ach. 130-2: ἐμοὶ . . . καὶ τοῖσι παιδίοισι καὶ τῇ πλάτιδι. 575· ὦ Λάμαχ' ἥρως, τῶν λόφων καὶ τῶν λόχων. 816-7. 888. 1074. 1086. Eq. 165: καὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς καὶ τῶν λιμένων καὶ τῆς πυκνός. 208. 528.
EUR. Alc. 290: ὁ φύσας χἠ τεκοῦσα.
AESCHYL. P.V. 39: τὸ συγγενές τοι δεινὸν ἥ θ' ὁμιλία. 98-9· τὸ παρὸν τό τ' ἐπερχόμενον | πῆμα στενάχω. 927· τό τ' ἄρχειν καὶ τὸ δουλεύειν.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3350
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Definite article missing in 3:1

Post by Stephen Carlson »

What does "3:1" refer to in the title of this thread??? :?

ETA: I'm guessing Hebrews 3:1, so I'm fixing the title.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
DOMINIC
Posts: 2
Joined: June 11th, 2020, 12:07 am

Re: Definite article missing in Heb 3:1

Post by DOMINIC »

Moderator's Note
I am approving this, but you need to change your user name to continue to post. Please follow the instructions in this post to change your user name so you can continue to post. I will delete this note when you have done so.

So really, gents, this hendiadys at Heb. 3:1 really could be the author indicating ultimately that apostleship is inherently of priestly character, and that "apostle" and "priest" really form just one thing. So, Jesus is chief apostle who in turn sends his deliberately chosen apostles, and thus also arch-priest sending in turn his chosen priests.

This would repair the apparent defect in the intended parallelism between Moses and Jesus in the passage in 2 ways:

First, since the Heb. chapter 3 midrash on Numbers 12:6-8 concerns not just their compared faithfulness in general, but really that kind of elite faithfulness (in all the house) where the one indicated enjoys an exclusive, privileged role as God's unique, credentialed, sole mouthpiece through whom the one that now speaks (Son) replacing the old prophets, thus can speak to the world the mysteries of the kingdom since his qualified apostles have been privileged to receive these secrets not as parables or riddles but as plain teaching (so, Lk. 8:10 just as Nu. 12:8), and

Second, since at the crescendo of the passage, the parallelism is made perfect when what the audience is asked to confidently hold fast to, is not a memory of Jesus merely, as they would if there were no priests-Apostles authorized to bind their obedient reception of the truths of revelation, but rather his visibly present ambassadors, just as the wilderness generation broke faith by not accepting Yahweh's chosen visible intermediary, Moses. It is not just Jesus alone who is the New Moses, but rather the completed (teleiosthai) Jesus of John 17 and Heb. 2:10, here with his "body" (Apostles). I wonder why this isn't proposed often!
Post Reply

Return to “Beginners Forum”